Does President Obama even know what he wants? Having what appeared to be an endorsement of the Cordoba Project mosque being built on Ground Zero, the New York Times ran the headline: “Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site.” Suddenly late Saturday, the president ran for cover and toldboth Politicoand the New York Times“that he wasn’t endorsing the specific project but making a general plea for religious tolerance toward all.” As the once paper of record reported on Saturday, “ he was ‘not commenting on the wisdom’ of that project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat ‘everyone equal, regardless’ of religion.”

The White House press office quickly explained, “Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night” — except, just to be clear, he is backing off from them. Can we be any more confused? In seeking his outreach to the Muslim world, the president now seems to be emulating the Arab leaders whose respect he courts — the same leaders who regularly say one thing to their own constituency and something else when talking to the West. But in this case, the president was addressing Americans on both nights — and hence made obviously contradictory statements, only one of which can be true.

Is it then any wonder that when it comes to what the Israelis think of Obama, they are totally confused and perplexed when they try to figure out what he really thinks of their nation and of America’s “special relationship” with it? In this regard, one must turn to the very important and penetrating lead article in the latest issue of The Atlantic by their star reporter on the Middle East, Jeffrey Goldberg.

I cannot think of a more essential article than the one Goldberg has just published. He has talked and spoken to every important player on both sides of the world, including a one-on-one with Benjamin Netanyahu a short time before he was sworn in as prime minister. Goldberg leaves Israel with the thought that if sanctions against Iran do not work by next spring — and few believe that they will — then Israel will have no option left but to bomb Iran. Of course, it would be better if the United States, and not Israel, did the job. But would Obama do it if all signs point to its necessity? The key paragraph in Goldberg’s article comes at the beginning of his long essay:

“But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)”

So we evidently will not stop Israeli aircraft from doing the job, but we will leave it to them. The reason they will do so, Goldberg writes, is rather simple: “[T]he Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.”

127 Comments, 58 Threads

1.
Ken Mitchell

Goldberg writes: “Increasingly harsh sanctions, combined with an open invitation to dialogue (plus the credible threat, lurking in the background, of eventual military action) could conceivably work to bring the Iranian junta around on the nuclear question.”

Yes, and perhaps the Moon really is made of green cheese. The Iranians have taken Obama’s measure and found him to be a weak, ineffectual dreamer with neither the intellect to understand the problem nor the will to carry out any plan.

The key here is “increasingly harsh sanctions”. If you SLOWLY increase the pressure, you make it not only possible but likely that the enemy – Iran now, North Vietnam then – will develop the means and the will to resist. If we’re going to increase sanctions on Iran, then it ought to be done suddenly, massively, and cripplingly. We S…L…O…W…L…Y increased the pressure on North Vietnam – and they laughed in our faces and kept sending their divisions south. Had we crippled the NVN economy suddenly, instead of the slow, peripheral bombing of irrelevant fortifications, they would not have been able to invade the South again. If we had taken out the Iranian nuclear sites two years ago, we wouldn’t be faced with an intransigent, aggressive President “Ah’m-A-Mad-Nutjob” now.

It’s probably already too late. I recommend stockpiling whiskey in vast quantities; all the “end-of-the-world” movies depict booze as the best post-holocaust currency.

Sanctions? What sanctions? The Sov,errrrr, Russians have just stated they are going to give the mullahs their nuclear rods next week and the Chinese and Turks have said they are going to give them fuel.

Sanctions? Only those too blind to see still think there are any. If the Israelis don’t act and soon, they are will be culpable in the destruction of Tel Aviv, for beginners.

If war erupts and Obama does not defend Israel, might Obama be impeached? There will be a major shift in Congress this fall and the remaining democrats will not want to be on the wrong side of history.

Is it really too late to take advantage of the current unrest in Iran – some reports are predicting imminent civil war – to bring a new pro-Western government that is tolerant of Israel and friendly to the West into power? While it would probably have been better to support the Iranian opposition last summer when their elections were allegedly stolen by the mullahs in favour of Admedinejad, that is water under the bridge. Is it now too late to help the opposition? If it is, then we are essentially left with the choice of letting the Iranians get nukes and hoping that they have the sense not to use them – a chance I might not be willing to take if I were Israel – or a pre-emptive strike now by the Israelis or the United States.

“Is it really too late to take advantage of the current unrest in Iran – some reports are predicting imminent civil war – to bring a new pro-Western government that is tolerant of Israel and friendly to the West into power?”

Pro-western may be too much to hope for, but “not Ahmadinejad’s mullahs” is I think still quite do-able. Something should ‘happen’ to the Chinese and Turkish oil shipment mechanisms.

Revolutions are very exciting in Hollywood pictures, but historically they rarely work when an absolute despot is in charge. The United States was a very rare exception, made possible by an unusual confluence of the right ideas, the right intellectuals, the right leaders, the right continent — and King George wasn’t Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The only thing that will bring down the Iranian government in any near term is an external attack. If I was Netanyahu — take out the reactors, take out the military, take out the secret police HQ, take out every top Iranian leader. Then you’ll give the rest of them a chance to win. Not until.

President Obysmal had the chance to back the pro-democracy movement in Iran last year, and decided it was a good time to shoot some hoops instead. So the Mullah’s quashed the protest and executed the protesters. And president Barock Hussain Oblowme went on vacation – again. What’s a few hundred dead Iranians to the self proclaimed master of the universe. Wouldn’t want to hurt any Muslim feelings after all (even though the dead were all Muslims). If president B.O. had helped topple the Mullahs and the Iranian regime, he could have changed the face of the middle east for the better for years to come. A stable Iran would change the entire dynamic of the middle east. But Obamalama Dingdong can’t be bothered with trivial crap like that. There’s the ramadan dinner, and fundraising, and vacation, and golf, and build the 19 martyrs mega mosque/mini-mall, pay the lawyers to keep the birth certificate under wraps, golf, plan more vacations, send Val Jarett out for a carton of Newports dammit…..

I don’t care about Obama anymore, he’s pretty much irrelevent, at least in relation to this issue. Most people here have given up on Obama, we only expect inaction, empty rhetoric, or sneaky hostility. What Obama has done is remove America from the equation.
What I do care about is our own PM, Netanyahu.
Will he pull the trigger?

I’m sorry to say it, but who can blame you from coming to this conclusion. Unfortunately, Obama hasn’t removed America from the equation but has reduced our value in it, i.e., to a much lower number or perhaps to his favorite number: 0. No matter how great a number is, when you multiply it by zero it yields zero.

That being said, I cannot help but believe that God teaches us through hopeless paradoxical situations like this and I know he’ll not abandon his chosen people: Israel will prevail. I am more afraid for what will happen to countries like mine whose closet Muslim leader are turning their back on Israel.

Do you think only Israelis think as I do? The whole Middle-East sees Obama as a big zero. Who in any foreign country can see America as anything but a feckless, unreliable ally? Someone smarter than me said, ”When the cat’s away, the mice kill each other.” Obama has created a power vacuum literally everywhere. The world’s policeman has gone away, the only result can be conflicts breaking out all over.
And thank you for the kind sentiments re: Israel – believe me, no one here has become anti-American, we are just disgusted with Obama & saddened by a weakened America.

It is not just that Obama won’t act – or may belatedly act in a disastrous way (a very possible scenario ) – it is that time has nearly run out. The existential threat to Israel is now sufficiently pressing that nobody has ‘until spring’ to deal with this (of course, Goldberg, being a ‘negotiating Jew’, has no stomach for it then either).

Who does? Well it has come down to no choice. Terry, I guess I am one of the few Israeli citizens who doesn’t share the Israeli majority’s vast patience with American stumbling and self-indulgence. Who elected Barack Hussein Obama? Americans, including the vast majority of Jewish wimps who now mostly behave towards Israel as German Jews in New York behaved towards their Ostjuden cousins seeking to immigrate to the US all those years ago. The American people elected Obama, the American people put up with Obama. Impeach Obama and the story changes. Sorry, but the American people – nobody else – elected this man who may not be Hitler, but is certainly far worse than Neville Chamberlain.

There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal about the increased military cooperation between the US and Israel. And of course one feels good about that at first — but then midway through the article, it is postulated that it may very well be Obama’s way of “not being surprised” by any sudden Israeli moves — that it’s his way of effectively “spying” on Israel, or if you prefer, “keeping tabs” on their military establishment so that any “sudden changes” in “normal procedure” (plane movements, mobilization, things like that), can be reported back quickly and that the White House might then have a chance to preempt Israel’s launching.

Sure it sounds conspiratorial — but the fact is that the US … or Obama, I should say, is scared that the Israelis will act on their own. They’ve upped the financial aid to Israel, they’ve promised even more next year — but of course all that doesn’t matter if someone has dropped a few A-bombs on you and you’re dead — it’s really such a childish maneuver to try to “bribe” the Israelis into not saving their own necks.

In my view, Israel should treat Americans very cautiously for the next 6 months and should seriously prepare for a surprise attack and then weather the political and military storm that comes (which Jane’s and other top notch Military Analyzers have all concluded Israel can survive). The reality of course is that most countries, especially Israel’s Arab “enemies / temporary allies” will be thankful. Yes Israel will suffer — but which is worse, suffer, or die?

Also I can’t remember where I read it, but one Israeli mentioned — it could have been in the Goldberg article — that they could simply “mobilize” 5, 6, or 7 times and then do nothing each time — making the Americans not think that “mobilization” means much of anything — that they are just practices or feints — and then of course, the next time, actually do the deed.

I LOVE the US Military — and I thank G-D that the Pentagon has consistently said “do not shoot their planes down” (what a catastrophe that would be!) but if it is true that Obama is attempting to use the US Military as a way of “keeping tabs” on the Israelis, specifically the Israeli Air Force, then Israel will just have to bite the bullet and keep secrets from their comrades (the US Military) for 6 months or so specifically for that reason.

It also “saves” any US GI from being put in a dicey position where he may (as most thankfully do) support Israel and their Military, but be “under orders” to report “back to their superiors” anything “suspicious” he sees. It would be in effect then, a “White Lie” or deception for a good cause if you want to call it that. It is one step beyond simply saying to the US GI, “turn around for a few minutes and close your eyes while I do something that I know you are not going to want to see.”

When Obama spoke in Cairo on June 4, 2009 I was glued to the television. A chill ran down my spine when I heard Obama say, ” No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. “.

With that one sentence Obama reversed a policy that has kept the world safe since the end of World War 2. The American position had been nuclear non-proliferation at any cost.

Obama spoke without Congressional input. With no discussion of foreign policy or military consequences.
Did Obama know he was letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle? What was to gain by uttering that sentence? Was he simply wooing the crowd?

The results speak for themselves. What many are calling the new Nuclear Axis of Evil.

Whatever the case one thing is clear- Every human being on the planet is at greater risk today because Obama couldn’t keep his mouth shut.

Obama’s intentions and affections are as plain as print. His “Christianity” is cosmetic only. He retains a great affection for Islam from his Muslim upbringing. (Both his biological father and his stepfather were Muslims, and he was educated as a Muslim at least as late as his tenth birthday.) He dislikes Israel intensely, and would be secretly pleased to see it destroyed.

You are absolutely right — the Mullahs themselves have explicitly said that “Iran” is not meaningful, and not worth anything when compared to the glorious afterlife of Islam (I’m paraphrasing). This amazing sentiment has been said openly and by one or both of the Supreme Ayatollahs! A complete sweeping with the back of their hand, the lives of 3/4 of a Billion people they rule for their own personal (and highly cult-like, even by “normal Shiite” standards by the way) beliefs. It’s incredible.

Utterly unconnected though they are (except in the minds of the deluded minority who an Islamic octopus stretching its tentacles over the world), Obama is correct and morally right on both these issues.

Citizens of a modern liberal state – even one as schizophrenic as America – should be allowed religious freedom. It would be outrageous to ban the construction of this building in religious grounds. It’s amazing any American can argue otherwise.

And Iran has not done anything for which it deserves to be nuked, bombed or attacked by America (or indeed Israel, although the Israelis fear anyone who presumes to possess a defence or deterrent against the Israeli military boot).

Countries – however much we dislike their governments – have a right to self defence. Iran is no exception. It’s disappointing that they want to have nuclear weapons, but – as with relations with modern Russia – nuclear escalation is solved by removing the threat of war, not by war; and certainly not by the threat of unprovoked attacks.

Of course, you in the ‘nukes the gooks’ crowd couldn’t possibly understand this. “They’re gooks!!! They must be nuked!”

Israel will have to learn to live peacefully with its neighbours one day. Obama has been doing the right thing in this area too, trying to put friendly pressure on that very unfriendly little country. Sadly, you’re right that Israel will probably attack yet another country that doesn’t deserve it. But that won’t be President Obama’s fault: it will be the fault of the Israeli’s and their reckless supporters such as yourselves.

If we “couldn’t possibly understand this” then I’m curious as to why you are wasting your obviously talented (I say that from listening to your website) time and energy trying to make us understand this?

Indeed, what draws you to this website at all? That’s the more interesting question that you should ask yourself (again, merely in my own humble opinion).

Lastly though, before lecturing, I think (and I of course can be wrong) that one should try to put oneself in the “other” person’s shoes (switch sides, so to speak). I followed your site and you appear to be from Chile — not that that matters per se — Chile is a wonderful country, I have some friends there and I love your wine :-).

But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend a gang of, say 9 “Right-wing Jewish terrorists” came one morning and blew up a series of buildings in your town — in fact ALL the buildings with the miraculous exception of yours — they all died by your counter-terrorism forces — nevertheless it was clear they were Jews. It also, tragically, turns out that all 3,000(!) of your former neighbors died, some quickly, some not. Thankfully though, you survived.

So far so good — it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to simply “imagine” Jewish terrorists I would think (perhaps I am wrong) from some of your statements regarding Israel and its “military boot.”

But now comes the “hypothetical question” which puts you in the shoes of the NYC survivors and neighbors of those who died in on 9/11 in the World Trade Center (one of whom was my childhood best friend, Ricky (Richard) Blood — I live in Williamsburg, Virginia, USA).

Now say, 9 years later a group of Jews — seemingly nice Jews, announce, and have already obtained the proper permits for, the building of a LARGE Synagogue across the street from where you live (your city has partially rebuilt itself, but naturally the wounds are still there as both physically and emotionally, Chileans, Americans, and even Israelis… are all human beings, right?). Yes, there are some Jews who live in the town, but not a large number, and there exists other Synagogues they can go to. Finally, there’s not a logistical need that this particular Synagogue needs to be so large AND, most importantly, needs to be built on an entire block of houses previously inhabited by your neighbors — some who you knew all your life and who died at the hands of those Jewish terrorists.

So, then, would you issue the same strongly supportive statement regarding THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT (yes I’m paraphrasing) of these (new) Jews to build their ostentatious and seemingly unnecessary Synagogue there?

They earnestly say it’s all meant to foster good will and inter-faith relations. So who are you (or I) to question their motives? And why would you question their intentions — since they only mean to build a Synagogue and there certainly should be freedom of religion, right?

Is there anything… anything at ALL “wrong” whatsoever — morally, psychologically, ethically, “philosophically” even that you personally would have in these Jews building that Synagogue on this site of where many people from all over the country come to pray and meditate and see as “hallowed ground”?

Please try to think realistically about both your own reaction and the reaction, perhaps, of those neighbors — new neighbors — who have since moved in to your (mostly rebuilt) town.

And if you wish to post your thoughts, I will read them with an open mind — of that I will promise you.

Bravo. Our politicians should stress that building the mosque is legally OK, and they should then go on to say that it is not sensitive to the feelings of New Yorkers, and that therefore they would encourage the Cordoba House people to find a more appropriate location. As the Muslims want us to be sensitive to them, they should also be sensitive to New Yorkers. (And yes, I realize that there are Muslim New Yorkers.) Whether building the mosque really is a “triumphalist” statement or not, downtown Manhattan seems a curious place to build a mosque. BTW, I expressed this statement to a Muslim acquaintance the other day, and she said “If the Muslims have to back off on building the mosque, it will make us feel as if we did something wrong, and the vast majority of us have done nothing wrong.” I hear her, but neither was I alive when blacks were brought to America as slaves, nor were any of my family slave owners. I nonetheless can very well understand the rightful sensitivity of blacks over the painful subject of slavery.

In my country, Jews are free to build religious centres any if they can buy the land and acquire the appropriate permit.
And regardless of circumstances, I would be appalled if anyone tried to pervert the political process to deny them right.
That’s the difference between a truly free society and one just pretending, I guess.

Moral people don’t kill others on the basis of their words, however offensive.

Iran has been the victim of aggression in modern history, but it has not been the aggressor in war since the days of the Roman Empire!

As opposed to Israel, which hasn’t been the aggressor in war since… when? wasn’t it just last week?

It’s true, Iran supports Israel’s enemies – Hezbollah, in particular – but that isn’t an act of war. All the great powers have done similarly, and with less reason.

But you Israelis can’t stand it. You can’t stand that anyone stands up to you, that your neighbours can presume to try and defend themselves against you, that any country can support those who try and deprive Israel of the power to rocket and bomb whomever it wishes with impunity. You want to commit your own Pearl Harbour – an unprovoked attack to deprive a nation whose only wrong is provide your otherwise defenceless enemy a means of self defence – and imagine yourselves the moral party.

I have no doubt you’ll do it – another act of infamy from Israel to add to two invasions of Lebanon and 40 years of mistreatment of the non-Jews under its control – and as always with acts of ill-considered violent wickedness, it will bring you no security.

It is clear that you are of the world view that Israel is an aggressor unworthy of sympathy, support or protection and further believe that Obama is doing the right thing in his support for the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the appeasement of Iran’s current leadership.

Perhaps it has not occurred to you, sitting comfortably at your computer, but there are actually many, many millions of people outside your warm and cozy reverie who wish you dead if you would not submit to their ideas about God, politics and the economy. No, these people are not Tea Party members in Nebraska, they are Shiite and Sunni Muslims all over the world who believe it is their most sacred duty to do this. Over the entire history of Islam, the expansionist ideals of the faith have waxed and waned with the ability of Muslim populations to mount effective campaigns of influence and conquest. It is crystal clear, to all but the willfully blind, that now, and for the last 30 years or so, we have been experiencing the re-emergence of the Muslim imperative to expand at any cost, by any means in all the territories not already controlled by those Muslims gripped by the “Islamist” ideology. It is very likely true that many Muslims, easily the majority in most Muslim dominated territories, want nothing more than a job, a family, and a good and pious life. But, these people also know that many others among them do not wish for those things, but burn with the fever and excitement of their dreams of coming Muslim conquests, re-conquests, and ultimate hegemony in the world at large. Those “normal” people are afraid of these others, and it is much easier for them to just nod their assent to those more motivated to Islamism and go on their way.

The traditions of conquest and subjugation in both Hebrew and Christian faiths, while never having been the nexus of their creeds in any case, have long been extinguished for centuries or millennia. This is not so with Islam. It is an inarguable fact of the Muslim canon that all traditionally pious and strict followers are required to go on Jihad, not as a personal quest (which also might, incidentally, be true) but as matter of bringing Islam to all unbelievers, first by persuasion and propaganda, military threat if that doesn’t suffice, conquest if threat doesn’t suffice, and finally dhimmitude or execution among the holdouts amongst the conquered. Islam is not just a religion; it is a religious, economic and political system which brooks no interference from any competing system or mode of thought or action. Those Muslims who are not strict or traditional in the sense of the most accepted orthodoxies among the current crop of Islamic religious scholars are no threat to anyone else. But their numbers are not in ascension but decline, and their most young and reckless offspring are, at some level, anywhere between coffee shop bravado and Al Qaeda training camps, enamored of this much more aggressive stance.

What does that mean for the United States, the West in general, Israel and even the more moderate precincts of Islam? It means that, on every level, from propaganda, terrorist attacks, outright military action and at literally any sacrifice to themselves and their brother Muslims, there will be literally millions and millions of Islamist Muslims willing to take our lives and their own, in order to help establish the worldwide Caliphate. This is not just some battle in far away precincts which will never enter your parlors on the upper west side of Manhattan; this is real, and it is coming after you, whether you like it or not, whether that you close your eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist, whether you express some vague leftwing solidarity with the “Muslim masses oppressed by the hegemons of the patriarchal homophobic pro-Zionist West” or not. None of that tripe will help. That is just the flip side of moral cowardice. So, unless things change, and change radically and fast, be prepared to explain, at some future date, your ideas about civil liberties to a heavily bearded and not very sympathetic member of the morals police from your local street corner mosque.

Whatever else you may think about President Obama, and while I think very little of him in just about every way, it is apparent to just about everyone that he has decided on a policy of “engagement” with the Islamic world in general, and specifically with the Mullahs of Iran. For reasons best understood by reading the above, this will not end well. You can engage with the Swedes, You can engage with the Columbians. You can even engage with the French. But you cannot engage with the Mullahs. They are committed Islamists and they see these attempts, rather clearly for what they are – appeasement on a scale not witnessed since the 1930′s. This can lead to no good.

The Israelis have been facing off against a brutal succession of enemies who have not only wished them ill, but have done all they could, donning whatever ideological coat was handiest and most effective at the time, to see to their complete destruction and, perhaps, even annihilation. First were the Nazi-allied Muslim functionaries of the post-Ottoman Empire territories in which Israel resides. Then the uncaring-to-hostile stewardship of the British mandate, then the all-out attack of the Arab nations in their first effort to kill the just-born nation. Then the Pan-Arab Nationalist movement, abetted by the newly hostile Soviet Union, launched more wars of destruction on Israel. Then came the Soviet and Pan-Arab idea of creating the “Palestinian” national movement, hoping to hold hostage the Arab refugees they themselves created with their wars against Israel and refusal to allow them inward migration into their related homelands, encourage their solidarity as a newly created political entity that could do their fighting for them while engaging the sympathy of a rather gullible Europe whose anti-Semitic feelings were never too far buried beneath the post-war veneer of a new but temporary Jew tolerance. Finally, when all that didn’t suffice, the rising tide of Islamism seemed to be the best answer for destroying Israel and killing off its Jews. One need only read the eliminationist charters of Hamas and Iran’s creature – Hezbollah – to see the proudly proclaimed intention of those “entities” to plainly, without ambiguity, do just that. And, further, faced with the exact same eliminationist rhetoric from Iran itself, do you think it would be prudent of Israel to just let the Mullahs go on their way, just cross her legs, close her eyes and hope for the best when Iranian high officials plainly stated, on the record, their intentions to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel at any cost once they get “the bomb?” There’s crazy, and then there’s really, really crazy. Israelis are not perfect by any means, but they are not really, really crazy. To try to deny Israelis the common decency to respect their right to their very existence, is not an option for a great and civilized nation like our own. Americans, will stand up for the Israelis if their existence is threatened, even though Mr. Obama may not be inclined to do so.

The Ground Zero Mosque is just one more way station in the path of Islamists and their liberal know-nothing enablers to attempt to numb the American body politic of their natural reaction to protect themselves and not be made fools of. This is not an attempt at reconcilliation and brotherhood, but an obvious monument to a suicidal enemy on our own scarred soil, and a marker of the future hoped-for ascendancy of Islamist civilization. The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Ken Mitchell #1, please do not deceive yourself or the reader. Massive and crippling sanctions on Iran will not deter the Mullahs. Sanctions, whether they be massive and crippling or ‘increasingly harsh’ are worthless. There is only one recourse; military force.

Should Israel decide that an independent strike is necessary, I doubt Barry Soetoro will be told. Other parts of your scenario might play out, but the capacity of the Hizballah – or Syria – vis-a-vis the IDF is not what you think. Nor will Assad necessarily sacrifice his regime and life for the satisfaction of killing a few thousand Israelis.

The only reason Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, have been fought the way they’ve been fought — timidly — by the Israelis has been due to the political pressure applied from the World — and their painstaking desire to not kill civilians even when armed enemies are hiding behind them and firing directly at Israeli soldiers in a “free fire zone.”

But in a serious “free-for-all” where Israel truly believes she is in mortal danger and has warned Lebanon, Syrian and Hamas not to intervene and they do so anyway, then you will see the true power of the disproportionate might of Israel’s military against these far far far far far weaker regimes.

This is not to say that they could not inflict thousand, if not tens of thousands, and who knows, with some very “(un)lucky” strikes in the right spots in Tel Aviv, a hundred thousand Israeli casualties (by the way, this of course includes Israeli Arabs, Jews, Druze, Christians, and others — no one is immune from a missile and Israel is very cosmopolitan).

But doing so will only increase the fury of Israeli counter strikes and every one of those regimes would likely fall — most certainly Assad’s tiny Alawite minority regime that he tenuously holds only by brute force, fear, horrific prisons, torture, and a highly sophisticated intelligence service directed INWARDS (they don’t play much on the world stage — they focus on keeping Assad in power, and that means keeping down the majority of Sunnis in Syria).

The ONLY thing Israel must worry about is IF and WHEN Iran gets the NUCLEAR bomb. Then she is in real trouble. But up to and before that, Israel can take care of herself — she can be bloodied, but she’d inflict a heavy price on those who struck this time — that point has been made many many times both privately and publicly to

1) Lebanon (no more just firing at Hezbollah, now it’s the Lebanese Army too — especially after that last premeditated murder on the part of a probably Shiite Lebanese Army sniper against an Israeli officer who was standing 3 FOOTBALL FIELDS DISTANCE WITHIN ISRAEL’s boundary — even UNIFIL agrees, amazingly)
2) Hamas — until and unless Gilad Shalit is returned, everything is fair game in a truly “crisis situation where Israel is getting hit from all sides”

But this is the key — for Israel to escape the “normal” pro-Arab pressure that generally mounts 24 hours after Israel fires her first bullet, she will have to be getting pummeled from all sides — video of bleeding Israelis will have to be beamed across the world to gain (temporary… very temporary) sympathy (as in Gulf War I), and only in that situation can Israel really let loose on whomever is stupid enough to attack them in a serious way.

The real question is whether or not the Russians will start to fuel Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr by August 21st. Some people say yes, some say no. But if they do, we have started to reach the point of no return. Forget about anything happening next year. If the Russians DO start fueling the Iranian nuclear facility, you could see an Israeli attack on Iran in the next week or so. Remember, Iraeli aircraft attacked nuclear facilities in Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) and in Syria before they became operational, NOT after. If the fueling does begin in Iran, bombing the facility in Bushehr could release a lot of radiation and cause substantial military deaths and nuclear contamination. So if the Russians are really serious about August 21, an attack could come very, very, soon.

Is our man/boy president ready for all of this? I doubt it. Also remember that all sorts of nasty things tend to happen in August, just before an election. It always seems to help the party in power, but this time it could actually throw the fear of God into the American public because this president is so inept and inexperienced.

Will an Israeli attack happen? If the Russians actually fuel that nuclear power plant, count on it, and the Russians know it. If I were the president, I’d start talking to Mr. Putin and try to convince him that having an Iran armed with nuclear weapons not far from his own border would not be in his best interest, especially if the Iranians give a bomb to some radical Muslim group inside Russia. Start making the point that Russia will have as much to lose in this as we, or the Israelis, do. And if that doesn’t work, tell Putin that we would love to build closer ties with the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and that we’d love to start building a NATO base there. At least that will get his attention.

I think Obama personally is in Putin’s pocket. All such communications will necessarily have to go from Jerusalem to Moscow. They will have to include warnings about prospects for Russian security should the regime there enable successful WMD attacks on the Israeli heartland.

You just stated the big question. If Russia starts fueling this reactor, a strike by Israel is guaranteed. This has been the question going around in the Conservative groups of this country. An attack after the reactor is fuel will be the equivalent of another Chernobyl.

Off the subject completely, it is interesting that the three countries which feed terrorism the most are suffering so greatly right now. Russia has its forest fires and expects food shortages, Pakistan has its floods and is expecting food shortages, China has its floods and mudslides and is expecting food shortages. North Korea doesn’t even need to be mentioned

On the other hand, if Israel waits till the reactor is fueled and then attacks it, it could make Iran into a wasteland for the next 10,000 years.

Obama makes his point of the Ground Zero mosque with, “..the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan.” To me and the remaining homo sapien sapiens – that’s the proposed Ground Zero mosque.

I was paying attention, Ron. For Obama started with the ‘never gets old’ phrase, “Let me be clear”. Oh, you were quite clear Mr. President. Your PC comment was met with less than admirable fanfare and wished to rebuke it.. sorry.

As for Israel and its people, relying on an ‘ally’ in a man who’d voted ‘Present’ in 160 votes on the Senate floor, when he’d ‘found the time to attend’ – don’t hold your breath for this ‘leader’ to step up to meet the Israeli’s halfway. You know, telltale signs of a leader..

I used to believe that Israel could do no wrong, that whatever Israel did, that they were directed by the Lord God. Then I got my head out of my ass. I also used to believe that God blessed America. That all ended when I decided to research who these people are that occupy the state called Israel, where did they come from, and why did they move to Palestine. The main question that started this research was from a question I had as to why would all the nations of the earth rise up against Israel? Just what is it that they will do that would cause that to happen? The answer to that question may be from the use of nuclear weapons on the millions of people in Iran (Persia). There is just too much evidence against the leaders in Israel making threats toward other countries, not just those in the Middle East, but of Europe and the United States. So, when Israel uses some of those 200 plus nukes they have against a citizen population, that could trigger the other 196 countries to rise up and get in Israel’s face. It is not the land or the people of Israel that were threatened to be pushed into the sea, but the Zionist regime. That will end along with the one in Iran, and the United States and the UK, France, et el. Unfortunately, for all of us worldwide, we have to go through a lot of hell on Earth before these evils are forever removed.

Jack *ss
Thank you for clarifying the world for me. Let’s ponder another question. What happens if Israel doesn’t attack Iran and Iran joins the world nuclear club? Would you be more comfortable with that scenario?

Thank you all for reading my post. Perhaps the safest place is up there where the sun don’t shine. Before those nations get in the face of that non state of – you know – all hell will have broken loose, and Terry, that would be right around where your at right now. As long as world politicians lie about everything under the sun, we will never know positively if Iran is really attempting to build the bomb. Two stepping president O, while you can figure that one out without my comment, hasn’t told the truth once that I know of. Is it true that Bibi only tells 2% truth just to get his way for the moment, then does the opposite before the day is finished, with a damn be the world, we do what we want, when we want to and we want what we want now. There is far too much information available to be blind sighted about what all of this war talk is gearing up for. For those here in the US, we are very much tired of being called the worlds police. That is just corrupt dual citizenship crooks that have embedded themselves in this government that have given this country that title. Thankfully, that is coming to an end and we won’t have to wait for much longer to see that end happen. The consequences of Imperialist Militarism of the United States Government and its Military Industrial Complex of Mega-Corporations is about to implode on itself. Start a war with Iran, with its neighbors next door and down comes those high and mighty ideals of being so called chosen people. When the SHTF, I hope you have enough kY lotion to ease your way up there where the sun don’t shine.

Jack you are clearly not very educated in the ways of the world. The only reason anyone cares about the middle east (russians and chinese included) is because that is where the worlds largest oil supply is located. We americans like to station some bad ass marines to guard the pump so that the lifeblood of our economy which generates our electricity and powers our transportation keeps coming at a steady quantity and price. Note that the price of oil is built into all goods in our economy thus it is critical!!!!! If you think that the financial meltdown on wall street during 2007 was bad, i assure you it was nothing compared to if the iranians cut us off from the oil. If we had a real president in office he would have taught Ahmadinajad a simple lesson, ‘know your role’ or is george bush going to have to smack a ho.

Obama’s fallback position is just as crappy as his original endorsement. America and Americans don’t need lessons in religious tolerance. We are and have been the most tolerant nation in the history of history. Obama, Bloomberg and the other nattering nabobs of the ruling class are just exposing themselves for their belief that they are better than Americans and that they need to tell the unwashed what to do.

It’s the Muslims, who need lessons in religious liberty. Their religion expressly calls believers to slay the infidels, not to make friends with infidels, to lie to the infidels and to legally classify infidels as dhimmis, once the Muslims takeover control.

I’d like to visit the ancient Synagogue at Khaybar in Saudi Arabia. Oops, can’t do that, Mohammed slaughtered all the Jews, who lived at Khaybar for centuries and called for the expulsion of all Jews and Christians from the Arab Penisula. The Saudis have been spending billions over the decades to spread their creepy Wahabbi religion everywhere and to build mosques everywhere. Why not demand reciprocity?

Where’s the Muslim tolerance for other faiths? Our ‘elites’, Obama, Bloomberg, etc. see fit to lecture us on our bigotry and lack of tolerance, why don’t they direct some of that excess sense of self-righteous superiority at the Muslim world?

Freedom of religion and the proposed Cordoba mosque near Ground Zero: Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to build religious (or any other) buildings wherever one wants. Mayor Bloomberg is simply confused. That is why there are zoning boards. Would Mayor Bloomberg approve of building a church in the middle of Yankee Stadium in the name of freedom of religion? As for President Obama, he is an ignoramus and I still wonder that he was elected to being president.

I did as Ron Radish suggested and read “The Atlantic” article by Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg states:
“But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence.”

-Why does Israel feel threatened? The Muslim world is united on one issue and that is Israel’s policies. Some more than others and Iran is one of the “more” crowd. But it’s not its existence as Israel would like to claim, but because of it’s policies to the conquered lands it occupies.

“the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests”
-says Gen David Patreaus
Israel’s policies and ours are not the same as some would have us believe.

“Of course, it would be better if the United States, and not Israel, did the job.”
-He goes on to claim. And we already spend roughly $3Billion a year on aid for Israel. Would it be wise to sacrifice our blood in the name of Zion? That’s not what our Founding Fathers would have us do, and it isn’t what we should do.

“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs….”
-Goldberg quotes Benjamin Netanyahu as saying. Yes, it sounds scary and perhaps it should give Israel pause. Egypt’s Nassar once advocated ‘…..pushing the Jews into the sea”, yet now that country’s leadership views Israel differently. The dynamics have changed since Egypt and Israel traded blows. It was diplomacy that we actually had to force on Menachem Begin that advanced the unheard of notion of peace between Israel and Egypt.

To his credit (-if the story is in fact true) George W. Bush denied Dick Cheney’s plans to attack Iran. It’s good to have the humility to accept past mistakes. Mr. Goldberg may well remember his own error in advocating war against Iraq, since he now writes in his blog:
“For those of you who care, here is the official Goldblog position — the Goldblog position of the moment, at least — on the matter of a potential Israeli or American strike on Iran’s nuclear sites: profound, paralyzing ambivalence.
Actually, let me amend that: For now, and for the remainder of 2010, I think the idea of a preemptive attack on Iran is a bad idea; I think it is important to allow President Obama’s plan — and yes, he has a plan, and he’s sticking to the plan — to play out.”
War with Iran is NOT in the best interests of The United States. This isn’t naiveté as this article’s author Ron Radosh says of Mr. Goldberg’s new position.

“Obama’s indecision about the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is simply emblematic of his continuing indecision and procrastination. It does not offer hope for what faces us shortly.”
-says Radosh. But there is little hope for a positive outcome in the war Mr. Radosh is advocating.

Always your ilk bleats about “occupation”, but never about the attacks of the Arab armies which led to the “occupation”. Never about Jordan’s policies when they controlled Jerusalem after the 1948 war launched by the Arab states but won by Israel. Never about the Syrian army in 1948 forcing the Arab residents of Hebron and other West Bank to leave. Never about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a guest of Hitler during WWII, cheer-leading the Arab attack in 1948 after Israel’s founding by the UN. Never about the fate of the Jews in the Arab states after Israel was founded.

Rewind the tape back to the beginning, and you will see (but probably refuse to understand) how the “occupation” came about. One of the lessons is: If you don’t want to lose territory, don’t start a war.

>>Always your ilk bleats about “occupation”, but never about the attacks of the Arab armies which led to the “occupation”.<>Rewind the tape back to the beginning, and you will see (but probably refuse to understand) how the “occupation” came about. One of the lessons is: If you don’t want to lose territory, don’t start a war.<<

-OK, so I did. And I'd be piss'd too if someone stole my land. Not condoning violence against civilians as some Palestinians have done, I do understand Palestinian frustration over the lose of their right property. Yes, I do understand Jack.

wow! Someone edited my post Jack! That which appears is only a portion of what I said. The part that is missing is about “The Balfour Declaration” and how Great Britain unilaterally decided who owned Palestine, hence my statement, “I’d be piss’d if someone stole my land”.
Yes, Arabs attacked Israel after the United Nations proclaimed the state of Israel. But the Arabs never accepted that notion simply because they were not a part of the process.

David, Firstly the UN did not ” proclaim ” the State of Israel it recognized it officially.

Secondly, your claim that the Arabs did not participate is factually incorrect.

The Allied and Associated Powers, as a group, through the League of Nations, confirmed the Balfour Declaration at the San Remo Conference on April 25, 1920, when the ” A ” mandates where allocated, by Article 35 of the Treaty of Sevres entered into between the Allies and Turkey on August 10, 1920, and the Palestine Mandate, promulgated on july 24, 19922, which came into force on Sept. 29, 1923. Emir Feisal, son of King Hussein of Hejaz, was the head of official Arab Delegation to the Peace Conference.

“We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement…. We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home…. We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movements complement one another. The movement is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a success without the other.” -Is this the same Emir Feisal you are talking about? Anyway, I guess he was wrong with the “imperialistic” part of his speech on Zionism.

Forgive me for not getting the details totally accurate Menachem. Yes, Emir Feisal was supposed to represent the Palestinian interests at Paris, but was he serving his own interests or his people’s? I don’t know. Yet soon after the British Mandate was established there was fighting among Arabs and Jews. Why? Maybe you can shed some light.
My point is, that since the United Nations Partition Plan (U.N. Resolution 181) the state of Israel has grown at the expense of the Palestinians. What is see, and correct me if i’m wrong (-i’m sure you will)

181 was NEVER formally instituted. As the Brits withdrew their troops from Palestine, The State of Israel was proclaimed, so it never seemed to be formally recognized by the U.N. Israeli independence sparked Arab armies to attack the Jewish State.
-This is the root of the problem. The legal transition of the State of Israel from the former British Mandate was never formally accomplished. Israel acted unilaterally in a sense without seeking an accord with its neighbors. Their Arab neighbors remained at a state of war with Israel.

After the 1948 war, Israel extended it’s borders (under U.N. Res. 181) at the expense of its neighbors. Again in 1967 they expanded because of the 6 day war. I am sure this seems justifiable to you and most Israelis, but for the Palestinians that were driven from their homes then and continuing to this time, it is not the right thing to do. Palestinians harbor some degree of righteous indignation with the turn of events that has shaped their lives, lashing out (-wrongly) at Israel and Jewish civilians. I understand it, though I do not condone it.

Israel costs the American taxpayers, what, $3Billion a year? It’s probably more than that but the exact figure is beside the point. It is more than we can afford. General David H. Petraeus stated before a Senate committee 16 Mar 2010:

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests… Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiments, due to perception of US favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the region and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

Will peace come for Israel and Palestine if Israel keeps all of their conquered land? Does might make right? We’ll see, but don’t expect the United States to continue funding Israel forever.

David, The following is part of a dialogue you and I were having on another thread. You never responded to this last entry and I think you simply got busy and were occupied elsewhere. I save the dialogue in its entirety because I found it very interesting. Since you are dealing with some of the same issues here I am reposting my response to you. When last we spoke you had just finished mowing your lawn-

David, Like yourself I too have been busy so its taken a while to respond to your post. Let me clear up some mistakes -

” I know nothing of the Koran, but in the Christian and Jewish traditions we learn that God promised the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants in Genesis. Yet Jews, Christians, AND Muslims claim descent from Abraham. ”

When referring to The Bible I am speaking about the original. I do not refer to the Torah as ” the old testament ” which implies a new testament. It is much clearer and intellectually honest to refer to the Torah as the Original Testament or, for the purpose of our discussion, The Bible. I am always amazed how little knowledge most folks have of The Bible. Gleaned for either the movies or comic books little serious study is given.

I don’t like it when people quote scripture to me unless it is Torah scripture. I will not quote scripture to you. However your comment which I quoted is wrong and right. Yes Jews and Muslims are descendants of Abraham. However The bible explicitly states that the land of Israel belongs only to the descendants of Isaac and explicitly excludes the descendants of Ishmael. The Land of israel is Jewish property and belongs to no one else. That is what The Bible says.

” There is also a LEGAL basis for the establishment of Israel beginning with The Balfour Declaration of 1917 which stated….. ”

David, The Balfour Declaration and all subsequent treaties did not establish the legal rights of Jews to the Land of Israel. They recognized the rights of Jews to the Land. The rights of Jews to the Land of Israel predates all of the above. In fact it was The Bible which established the standards for the legal and moral rights of all human beings to own private property.

You said you were busy mowing your lawn. Good. Now I ask you what makes it yours? What is there to prevent someone bigger or more well armed from taking it? The first response from most people is ” I have a deed “! Well David, your deed comes right from The Bible. When Abraham bought the burial place for Sara in Hebron he established the moral criteria for private ownership that is followed by every society today. Who bought and from whom. How much was paid and in what currency. What are the boundaries. Was it done of the parties own free will. Were there witnesses and who were they. Was it written down. Was it made public. All these criteria were established in Justice when Abraham bought the grave for Sara. In fact Davis, The Jews ownership of the Land of israel underpins the moral right of free people everywhere to live in peace on their own property. If the jews do not own The Land, then in a moral sense, you don’t own the lawn you just mowed.

” After the Holocaust and the establishment of the United Nations, the state of Israel was established with clearly defined borders. ”

Again David the UN did not establish Israel. It recognized Israel A huge and very profound difference.

” These are the borders that I’ve been referring to, the borders established by the United Nations. Herein lies the problem, since God wasn’t more specific, what else can we go on? ”

The Almighty was indeed specific and the borders noted in The Bible are still viable today. They will be the borders again. Again I will not quote scripture to you however if you do further research using original sources you will find out for yourself. For no let me assure you the land the ” settlements ” are built on fall within those borders.

” All I ask of Israel is to respect those non-Jews withing their mandated borders, and to respect the mandated border. Sadly, this seems impossible given the bad blood on both sides of this issue.”

In fact Jews are obligated to treat non-Jews within our borders with respect and even charitably. We are required to do so. However there is a mutual responsibility. Non- Jews within our borders must respect our Laws and our rights to The Land. If they do not they are to be treated as criminals. Pretty much like what Americans want when they talk about immigration. Legal is fine. obey the law is fine. Otherwise out you go. In fact I think the problem for the USA is a direct result of the demands of the demands made on Israel to accept a hostile foreign population into its midst. Something to think about.

” Jesus was also first and foremost….a Jew. ”

Having been born in Bethlehem, Jesus would be called, according to the ” world communities ” criteria, a Jewish Settler. Ironic isn’t it?

What you have not even addressed is the land that was on the West Bank and the part of historic Jerusalem that was Jewish owned. The land I’m referring to was bought and paid for by Jewish settlers. They died defending that land against the Jordanian army which was led by British officers. That land grab has never been addressed!

Menachem,
-I really enjoy dialogue with you. I am a student of early Christianity, Jews who followed the teachings of the teacher Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem. What happened to that sect that is described in the Christian book of Acts? A specific community was mentioned who’s leader was James, brother of Jesus. This community like all the other Jews in Jerusalem were forced to leave by Titus in 70CE.

Titus left only a foundation of Herod’s Temple which remains to this day. For close to 1900 years only a small remnant of the original population of Jews still called this land home. New people occupied the desolate land. A new temple was constructed over the site of Herod’s old Temple. Yes, there is a deed that Jews hold title to. But what of the ones that have resided on that land for close to two millennium? This is my question, and I have no answer. Is there a future for coexistence?

Why then are Palestinians moved out of their homes? Why is their water service cut? Not all Palestinians who have been forced out of their homes are law breakers. I mentioned to you before I wholeheartedly supported Israel at one time. But I have changed my mind. I see Israel using the conflict with the Palestinians as an excuse to seize more land for Jewish settlers. It appears to me to be a land grab that Israeli authorities promote knowing that unless they drive out Palestinians, they (-the Jews) will be outnumbered by them.

“In fact Jews are obligated to treat non-Jews within our borders with respect and even charitably. We are required to do so. However there is a mutual responsibility.”
-Yet it doesn’t always appear to be that way. Neither side is innocent here. I can understand your claim to Israel. I feel the pain of Palestinians who have been kicked out of their ancestral homes. Something has to change in this situation, and I fear it falls on The United States to coerce both sides to settle their differences. We simply cannot afford to pay Billions of dollars in aid annually to Israel, The Palestinian Authority, and even Egypt. This situation cannot continue. Both sides must negotiate. Terror against all civilians must cease.

“Having been born in Bethlehem, Jesus would be called, according to the ” world communities ” criteria, a Jewish Settler. Ironic isn’t it?”
-Had his family stayed, yes. Good observation.

David, I can’t answer your questions regarding early christianity. I am not qualified to do so. You do however ask two questions I ac answer-

” Why then are Palestinians moved out of their homes? ”
The answer is that population exchange is the best solution to the conflict and , for the record, more Jews have been moved from their homes than palestinians.

” Why is their water service cut? ”
The answer is that the charge itself is untrue. it has never been done.

“The answer is that population exchange is the best solution to the conflict and , for the record, more Jews have been moved from their homes than palestinians.”
-So the Palestinians have to vacate their ancestral homes and move to a foreign land? That’s not something I would support, and it isn’t what America should support, but fine…..that’s your opinion.

” Why is their water service cut? ”
The answer is that the charge itself is untrue. it has never been done.
-So I must have gotten bad information.

One more question. Why did Rachel Corrie get killed? Was it own fault or could the equipment operator have stopped?

” So the Palestinians have to vacate their ancestral homes and move to a foreign land? ”

The history of the Jews and Israel neither began nor ended with the destruction of European Jewry. In fact there are Jewish communities in Israel that have lived on the land continuously for more than 2000 years. And the graves of our ancestors are still Holy places of worship to us and have been continuously for almost 4000 years. In fact the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is the oldest public building in continuous use in the entire world. I will speak more of this in a few moments.

From 1400 to 1900 CE the Turks ruled but did not live in what was commonly called territorial Palestine. The Muslim Palestinians ( yes there are Jewish and Christian Palestinians too ) currently control 80% of the territory of Palestine. On that 80% they have three operating governments. One in Jordan, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza.

Despite the fact that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years it is the Muslims who refuse to recognize any Jewish rights what-so -ever.

The town of Hebron is a case in point. The Jewish neighborhood in Hebron comprises only 3% of the town. In that neighborhood 800 Jews live surrounded by 30,000 Muslims. Hebron and its religious sites have been holy to Jews for 2700 years before Mohammed was even born. Yet the Muslims wish to deny Jewish rights to worship in Hebron. The Israeli army is not called in to harass the Muslim population. It is there to prevent a repeat of the 1929 massacre when the Muslims rioted and murdered Jewish men, women and children.

It is time for people to look at the history of Palestine and ask themselves the following- Why do the Palestinians require more than the 80% of Palestine they already control? Why do the Palestinians refuse to recognize Jewish rights to areas that were Jewish before Mohammed was born? Why are the Palestinians so interested in building on top of Christian and Jewish Holy sites? Why have the Palestinians driven the Christian community from Bethlehem? Why do the Palestinians indoctrinate their children to hate rather than live in peace?

As far as Muslims living in Israel there is an answer for that as well. There is a realistic solution-

The world community believes in violent population transfer.

Helen Thomas and Hamas both want the Jews out of the Middle East.
Thomas wants the Jews transferred to Poland.
Hamas wants Jews transferred to the middle of the ocean where there is no tree to hide a Jew if he is chased by murderers.
They are proponents of violent transfer.

Thomas , with her , ” Get the hell out! ” and Hamas with their baby killing.
Different, to be sure, but the intent, identical.
That is true ethnic cleansing .

On the other hand non violent population transfer has been done before.
I am a proponent of non-violent population transfer.

In fact the very first High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations, Fridtjof Nansen , received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922 for ending a war that seemed intractable by using non violent population transfer..

” In 1919, he ( Nansen ) became president of the Norwegian Union for the League of Nations and at the Peace Conference in Paris was an influential lobbyist for the adoption of the League Covenant and for recognition of the rights of small nations. From 1920 until his death he was a delegate to the League from Norway.? ? In June, 1921, the Council of the League appointed Nansen its first High Commissioner for Refugees. Stateless refugees received a ” Nansen Passport ” , a document of identification which was eventually recognized by fifty-two governments. In the nine-year life of this Office, Nansen ministered to hundreds of thousands of refugees – Russian, Turkish, Armenian, Assyrian, Assyro-Chaldean – utilizing the methods that were to become classic: custodial care, repatriation, rehabilitation, resettlement, emigration, integration.? ? In 1922 at the request of the Greek government and with the approval of the League of Nations, Nansen tried to solve the problem of the Greek refugees who poured into their native land from their homes in Asia Minor after the Greek army had been defeated by the Turks. Nansen arranged an exchange of about 1,250,000 Greeks living on Turkish soil for about 500,000 Turks living in Greece, with appropriate indemnification and provisions for giving them the opportunity for a new start in life.” Nobel Prize Website

IN 1922 FRIDTJOF NANSEN WAS AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE .

” We all know from the history books of the exchange of Turks and Greeks, which took place after World War I when, after the war ended, there was a further war between Greece and Turkey, at the end of which, the Greek and Turkish governments agreed on an exchange of populations. And as it appears in the history books, the Greek minority in Turkey was sent to Greece; the Turkish minority in Greece was sent to Turkey. That’s what it says in the history books. But if you look at the treaty in which this agreement was incorporated, it says something different. The parties to be exchanged are defined as Turkish subjects of the Greek Orthodox faith and Greek subjects of the Muslim faith. And if you look more closely at who the people actually were, they were, to a very large extent, Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christians from Turkey and Greek-speaking Muslims from Greece. This was not an exchange of two ethnic minorities. It was a deportation of two religious minorities. ”
Prof. Bernard Lewis, April. 27, 2006 interview, Pew Forum

Ninety-nine and one-half percent of the middle east is Muslim. There are enormous swathes of empty land throughout the Arab world. A fraction of the money spent on war would build one thousand Beverly Hills’ for refugees who wanted to move.

There are people all over the world looking for better homes and opportunities. Are the Palestinians all of the same mind? Not one single Palestinian wants a new villa, a new school for his children, and the money to start a bakery?
There is plenty of money for flagship properties in London. Boutique hotels for the privileged instead of cities for the Palestinians? Why?

What if some Palestinians wish to remain where they are in Israel? They can. Their reason would be their business. No need to justify or argue. You want to stay? Stay

Where people wish to remain they should be able to do so as citizens of Jordan, which already controls seventy-seven percent of territorial Palestine. If Jordan wishes to change its name to Palestine, as the late King Hussein Ibn Talal suggested, that is its right. In any case as long as Israeli laws are not broken there is no reason for Palestinians to move. If, on the other hand, they wish to live in an Islamic country under sharia law they are only a twenty mile bus ride from Amman.

Perhaps there are other countries that would allow applications for citizenship. I don’t know.

Muslims all over the world are on the move. Only the Palestinians stay put?
Hamas wants the Palestinians in Gaza to stay put. They are its hostage.

That is why true humanitarian relief for Gaza would be getting the people out, not the concrete in.
When Jordan, which occupies 77% of Palestine, is asked to accept its historical obligations, there will be a real opportunity for peace in the region.

One more question. Why did Rachel Corrie get killed? Was it own fault or could the equipment operator have stopped?
I wasn’t there so I cant answer the to the specifics but when someone willingly enters a battlefield they must be ready for the consequences.

” In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. He also said that while he would agree to allow NATO forces to deploy in the future Palestinian state, he would not permit any Jewish soldiers to serve in the NATO units stationed on the territory of such a state. As he put it, “I will not agree that there will be Jews among NATO forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil.”

“Why do the Palestinians refuse to recognize Jewish rights to areas that were Jewish before Mohammed was born?”
-Europeans settled in lands “vacated” by the natives in America beginning 400 years ago. The remnants of native tribes have no right to the lands they lost (due to disease and war), except for small parcels (reservations). What makes Jewish people so special? As I see it, they already have a fairly good sized “reservation”.

Palestinian and Israelis have so much enmity that I fear they will never come to terms. The United States is too closely aligned with Israel, and this relationship is costing us more than just money. It’s NOT our fight.

I wonder if people are beginning to realize why the shadows around Obama’s origins must be illuminated by investigation. Not by the oddly-named MSM — their colors are nailed so fast to the liberal mast they’ll never be separated — but perhaps by a Congressional committee when Republicans take control of at least the House. Did anyone else see the video of a chuckling Farrakhan saying Obama was “selected before he was elected”? That appeared one day on the internet and then was gone. Not a word about it elsewhere, of course.

And please, no “birther” BS. Ridicule is straight out of the Alinsky handbook. But it stopped working in this case enough that about 43% of the people think Obama was born on foreign soil. The if-it-walks-and-talks-like-a-duck principle was invoked or remembered, one or the other.

If the president and his supporters, as he so elequantly explained, truly believe that muslims have a perfect right to build the 9/11 mosque would someone tell me how he could possibly feel differently but the Iranian bomb?
They are trying to defeat us and postmodernists can’t see any reason not to let them. Didn’t someone once say that a liberal is someone so fair minded that he can’t take his own side in a fight?

Does President Obama even know what he wants? Having what appeared to be an endorsement of the Cordoba Project mosque being built on Ground Zero, the New York Times ran the headline: “Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site.” Suddenly late Saturday, the president ran for cover and told both Politico and the New York Times “that he wasn’t endorsing the specific project

He doesn’t know immediately the question is put to him because there is a time lag until those pulling the strings get the question and send him the answer.

” . . . . a liberal is someone so fair minded that he can’t take his own side in a fight?” Good one.

When faced with a difficult decision, the man votes ‘present’. Why should we think he would do anything different on this?

Obama can’t explicitly say he’s a Muslim – that would offend too many Americans (the U.S. is still about 80% Christian). So, he has to be a ‘cosmetic’ Christian, as FWPorretto says above, and tiptoe to appease the mullahs and the U.S. at the same time. At some point, voting ‘present’ implodes – my prediction is it happens November 2.

Please read what the Dhimmi of Mayor Bloomberg is doing to this beautiful church!
Our “I support Freedom of Religion” President could careless that St. Nicholas Orthodox CHurch in New York cannot get a building permit. America is a Judeo-Christian nation!

“WOULD MAYOR BLOOMBERG SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WHITE SUPREMACIST CHURCH IN HARLEM?’
-Writes my man, menachem
On one level this is witty, but upon inspection it isn’t realistic. What white supremacist would want to travel to Harlem to attend church? They’re more comfortable here in Moore County!

Why is Mayor Bloomberg not giving a permit to the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church to be rebuild? Our President says that he supports Freedom of Religion, but only if you are Muslim? How much money is Mayor Bloomberg going to make out of the Mosque? Is he a Dhimmi Jew? Does he only care about the Arab money?

Israel attacking Iran is John Bolton’s Wet Dream. He has and always will be a warmonger of the worst type, he writes about this on an almost paranoid regularity.

Israel cannot only attack the nuclear facilities, it will need to wipe out Iranian response capabilities. To do this it will need to set off a high altitude EMP to fry Iranian defense networks and electronics. Then It may have a chance to defend itself in the ensuing weeks.

Iranian response will come, and it will be in the form of small teams of Iranian agents already inside Israel and other nations, and they will set off Biological, Chemical, and other types of weapons.

War with Iran will come but be careful what is asked for, it just might be granted.

Every single person reading this knows that a state of war has existed between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran since November 4, 1979. We have no choice about its reality. What we can choose is to end that war, victoriously and decisively — but always striving for minimal loss of life. Thousands of dead is a lot better than millions.

At no time in its short history, is Israel more alone and isolated. Once Iran has the capacity to assure the destruction of Israel by raining down nuclear missiles on her head, it needs merely to have its henchmen do its dirty work.

Hezbollah and Hamas can mount the “soft offensive” with short range barrages. ANY military response will be met with cries of “disproportion” and Iran and Turkey will “threaten to enter” the fray.

Is there an Arab nation that will lift a finger to avert this injustice? To right this wrong? Even utter a peep out loud against it?

Don’t be naive. They are more likely to join than protest.

How about the West? Britain? Don’t make me laugh.

How about us? Sorry. Our pilot is pontious. He will wash his hands of the entire affair. If this administration believes that the Mosque in Manhattan is for the purpose of building bridges…then there isn’t an offer to buy a bridge that they would avoid buying.

Maybe that explains our current economic mess.

More importantly, it signals the willingness to sell out Americans and Jews especially, in the desperate need to show fealty to those that mean to harm them.

This administration isn’t talking about the “wisdom” of Muslims taking off their shoes and beating us with them…only that they will turn their backs and wash their hands of whether we deserved it.

A mosque at ground zero and a nuclear Iran at the birthplace of western faith…God’s Ground Zero, if you will, provide the litmus test for human decency.

The flying imams poked a thumb in our constitutional eye, by provocative behavior on an airplane. Now the developer imams are jabbing a thumb in our eye by constructing a $100 million dollar dirty shoe to wipe on the grave sites of our innocents felled on 9/11.

Obama said that it was their “right” to do this to us. Then, didn’t so much moonwalk backward, as do the Electric Slide…when he said he wasn’t “commenting on the wisdom” of it.

Israel is alone and isolated and this was the final tolling of the bell that America will abandon her in her time of need. How could we do otherwise? We are abandoning ourselves first.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
Statement of Debra Burlingame, Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, in Response to President Obama’s Remarks about the Ground Zero Mosque
9/11 Families Stunned by Presidents Support of Mosque at Ground Zero

New York, NY, Aug. 14 — Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.
Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.
We are stunned by the president’s willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11–a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness. In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.
We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent.
##
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
Co-founders Debra Burlingame and Tim Sumner

The question that supporters of the mosque at Ground Zero must ask is if it is indeed a provocation does the Constitution still allow it. It seems that there is ample justification to believe this is the case.

Liberals do not care about hostility towards America with their blind/self-serving/useful-idiotic appraisals of freedom of religion, in which case they are tone-deaf and crooked, with no standing (as ones chosen) to defend the country’s integrity. A provocation would obviously deem the project unconstitutional – you cannot yell, “fire” into a movie theater.

I am completely willing to be on board denouncing the scoundrel in the People’s House. I have no idea if this dithering is part of the plan or not. Is he incompetent across the board or is that all part of the (Cloward-Piven-Soros) plan? That said–geez, what about the rest of the world? I’m sick of America and Americans being insulted and condemned at every turn. France was making deals with Saddam Hussein right up until the end. Russia’s making deals with Iran. Other countries have had a hand in this situation whether by acts of omission or commission. America can’t be their whipping boy forever. Nor can Israel.

Israel should act decisively and apologize later. The world will always hate the Jews. So what. Survive and be hated or take Ghandi’s advice and march triumphantly into the ovens? Not much to consider AFAIC.

Look Obama can procrastinate all he wants, over any immediate danger he will be in. While in office he and his family are well protected from harm at taxpayer expense. When he leaves office his family will still be well protected by his islamic friends and our secret service. You as an average citizen are screwed! I ask you if Obama is worth saving why not you too, you probably are worth saving more than Obama after all all Obama has done is destroy our Republic. Let the muslim b–tard go to his muslim allies. The one thing that still puzzles me is why the blacks are still standing strong behind Obama. Obama has done nothing to help the black community but has done a lot to hurt them. Under Obama more blacks are out of work and more black babies are being killed each day on his watch, oh I am white but we all have the same creator and right to life!

we are at war in 2 countries; costing us billion of dollars and the lives of thousands of OUR children ; what good would come from us or Israel attacking Iran thousands more of Our children and the possible WW3 We need to solve this in a peaceful way if at all possible. And I’m sure NY NY can make up it’s own mind about a what should be built on ground zero

To Arnold, if you choose to live your life in fear from the islamic religion. That is your choice, but I choose not to live in fear of muslims or any one else for that matter. Arnold if you call what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan war then you do not know how ugly war really is. That is why you fight a war to win it first and talk later, but our politicians love to play at war with our countries men and women. These so called wars could be over quickly if we fought them like a real war. You know Arnold America did fight 2 wars at one time and we won because we fought to win against Japan and Germany or have you forgotten!

There is one Factor which all of the scenarios are NOT taking into account. There is a God, a REAL God. Not the phony Allah of Islam but the real God of Christianity and Judaism. He holds the world in the palm of His hand. He created it, only He can destroy it. How many other times in recent years has Iran rattled its sabre and yet nothing comes to pass? The same with other countries. When and if it suits God to bring about war in the Middle East, it will happen. Honestly, I don’t see it happening on a world-wide scale. Perhaps regionally though.

What I DO see is humanism taking over the world briefly with its hatred of religion at all (ANY religion) and the lie that man is his own god. All of the politically correct horse-crap we’re getting fed comes straight from the Humanist Manifesto 2.

The idea that religion is harmful, illusory, irrelevant, irrational and useless as anything more than a moral code. The idea that any kind of sexual conduct, regardless of how perverse, is fine as long as no one gets hurt. Environmental green weenie-ism. The idea that moral values come from human experience. Euthanasia and suicide are fine. Socialistic world-wide economy. Every last bit of this drivel comes from the HM2.

So I can see a war of regional magnitude, possibly even a limited nuclear conflict, between Israel and Iran, being an excuse for the humanists at the UN to ban as much organized religion as they can, WITH THE PEOPLE CLAMORING FOR IT.

And then, when the humanists try to eradicate Christianity…the Second Coming.

I find it pretty disturbing that a man who defends the right of the muslims to build a mosque also is doing his best to trash the constitution. Obama has made his disdain for the constitution pretty damn clear, but he’s willing to defend the muslim rights using that same constitution. Yes, they DO have a right to build the mosque on private property (while private property still exists), but that’s hardly the point. The mosque and “community center” is an antagonistic slap in the face to Americans, and these people know it. They CHOOSE to antagonize Americans while at the same time trying to say they are doing it for interfaith relations.

Here’s what it’s done for me as far as interfaith relations; my tolerance for -any- version of islam has dropped into the negative. As for islamic terrorists we meet on the battlefield; I don’t think we need to be taking prisoners anymore. It’s a waste of time. From this point on we should kill the ones shooting at us and leave their bodies rot in the sand.

As for Obama….I can’t consider this man who hates this republic and it’s constitution in favor of his own radical progressivism to be my president. I cannot wait for the day that no other decent American does either and he’s out of office so his mess can be cleaned up properly.

What we have on our hands with Iran is the result of Jimmy Carter’s incompetence. China’s rise and wealth and expanding military can be attributed to Bill Clinton; I’m surprised they don’t carve his visage into a mountain over there. What lasting world-changing scenario will be the result of Obama’s efforts (or lack thereof)? Likely a Third World United States or a smoldering North America populated with cannibals and biker gangs…

While I would much prefer to see the White House willing and able to support Israel openly and credibly, I don’t want to ignore the question of whether the wounded mullahs would be willing and able to support Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas effectively once their own ass is on fire.

Hamas and Hezbollah are deterrents against Israel’s preemptive potential only as long as Netanyahu determines that the preservation of minor diplomatic niceties is still preferable to the potential collateral costs of a military commitment to the preemption of a major existential threat. Nobody else in the world is in the position of making that judgment, and decide whether and when to pull that trigger. In that sense, Netanyahu is a more powerful man than Obama, not so much because he should be, but because Obama does not know better than voting “present” when someone else sticks one’s neck out.

Would we be truly surprised if the Prime Minister determines that “Going Rogue” is still the least undesirable of all the bad options? Would the white house? That’s nothing compared to whatever can surprise us regarding how it all unfolds from that fateful moment. Who can really calculate that? If you find the certainty of Israel’s annihilation a more comfortable eventuality to contemplate, what’s wrong with explaining why, right here along this comment thread?

“They know it is their country [Israel] that will be destroyed if the mullahs get the bomb”.

Ron,that’s wishful thinking in itself, to take the view that only Israel faces incineration from an Iranian nuke. Do you think that the mullahs would hesitate, if they thought they could get away with it, to slip a nuke to one of their terrorist clients, for use on a western city?

They are so mad and morally bankrupt, they wouldn’t hesitate, if they thought they could do it with impunity.

Indeed. Let’s not forget that it was Mr. Obama who, during the campaign, demonized our efforts in Iraq and as a senator did all he could to prevent, and then to denigrate the Surge which actually saved the day. Yet at the same time, Mr. Obama declared the war in Afghanistan the good war, the necessary war that the evil and foolish Bush was neglecting. Right.

So when it came time for Mr. Obama, as POTUS, to ante up and support the good war, the necessary war in Afghanistan, it took him three months to make the decision about whether to provide necessary troops for his war of choice and he was willing to send no more than 25% less than the numbers requested by his hand-picked military commanders. This was likely the case because he apparently truly hates to make decisions, having no real experience at that pursuit, but also because it likely took that long for his advisors to conclude that as much as they’d like to immediately cut and run, the political consequences were just too great to do anything other than to support the troops. At least he could short them 25%. One shudders to think what he might have done if support was necessary for a war that wasn’t so good and necessary.

What is truly extraordinary is that any of our allies would have the slightest doubt about Mr. Obama’s strength and reliability: He has none. He will not, in fact, stand up for America’s historic alliances and reflexively sides with the enemies of freedom and western civilization. Certainly any rational Israeli must know that their continued survival is entirely in their hands, and if they are truly wise, they’ve always known that, but should be willing to be pleasantly surprised when leaders like George W. Bush take office. Recent events, such as the promised sale of F-15′s to Saudi Arabia and the Obama Administrations refusal to allow the Israelis to install their own avionics in the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have Israelis wondering if they should end their reliance on American weapons and revive their own efforts in that regard. They should.

What Mr. Obama has done is the opposite of what he professes to want to do (to whatever degree what a man utterly devoid of firm convictions and principles actually believes or wants can be accurately, reliably divined). The only real question before the Israelis is not whether Barack Obama can be relied upon to aid them in preventing a second Holocaust, but whether nuclear weapons will be necessary in any strike against Iran to ensure success. Appeasement always has horrendous costs. By refusing to learn from history, by inspiring rather than preventing war, Mr. Obama is not ensuring a comfortable place for himself in its annals.

“Recent events, such as the promised sale of F-15’s to Saudi Arabia and the Obama Administrations refusal to allow the Israelis to install their own avionics in the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have Israelis wondering if they should end their reliance on American weapons and revive their own efforts in that regard. They should.”

-Finally, someone I can agree with on this site! How many Billions of dollars a year in military aid goes to Israel? Add to that foreign aid, and I bet it is more than $5Billion per year. Yes, by all means Israel…..end your reliance on American weapons AND aid. You cost us far too much with very little in return!

Such a new arrangement would cost the US more money in R&D than the measly amount you mention. For instance, Israel is sharing its new Arrow missile program with the US. R&D for just this one item would cost easily ten times the amount you mentioned. Add to this, the new tank defense systems, electronic developments, computer developments, and new stealth technology and the amount you mention is a real bargain. So, little return?

Whats so hard here? Obama is a spiritually and emotionally empty man. Multiculturalism is the cause he leads, and the one unifying central belief of
MultiCulturalism is that everyone agrees to believe in nothing. Taking advantage
of this massive intellectual and spirtual failure is the hard, fanatic faith of
Islam that knows very well what it believes and is eager to fight and die for it.
To Islam, time, Faith, God are on their side, and victory is inevitable.
And when you look in the empty faces of Americas elite leaders you know Islam
is probably right.

$5Billion annually isn’t exactly chump change Andy. Perhaps there may be use of the Arrow missile, but Tanks? -Expensive targets. We need to tailor our force to the threat that exists today, not in the cold war. We need to spend less on gold plated crap and field a force of special ops troops…..guys that kick in doors and pull triggers. Yeah, forget the tank and give the grunt a weapon that has some range and punch. It’s a lot more cost effective in today’s world.

You are such a great military expert, I’m really awed by it. So why did the US invest more for armor in Iraq? Nothing on a battlefield will chill your blood more than a tank coming at you. As for range and punch, there is a limit to the carrying capacity of a grunt. Weapons that provide range and punch aren’t light. Yes they can be effective; however, the grunt needs something to ward off those pesky anti-personnel weapons. That answer is still armor. By the way, why kick in a door for that matter a house when you can just run over it with a tank?

Iran nukes Israel, unfortunately the palestinians get nuked as well – Governments all over the world, including and especially the Arab Nations, give a vast sigh of relief (very privately of course). In one fell swoop the Iranians have done them such a good deed, no one really liked the “Zionists” and the “Palestinians” have been a thorn in everyone’s side for such a long time.

Now, of course, the world can rise up in all “justification” and “righteous moral indignation” and end the Mullah Regime in Iran, thus ridding the Oil Rich Friends of the world of a very dangerous enemy, … Everyone happy!

“So why did the US invest more for armor in Iraq?”
-Why did we need to be in Iraq in the 1st place? (-He answered rhetorically). Seriously, in an occupation you’d need armor, but we shouldn’t ever be an occupying army. Besides, the armor we use outclasses any threat we have.

“…..however, the grunt needs something to ward off those pesky anti-personnel weapons. That answer is still armor.”
-Yes! An A-10 would do nicely.

“By the way, why kick in a door for that matter a house when you can just run over it with a tank?”
-Who clears the runway needed to airlift the tank? Rangers. Again, This sounds like more occupation, something Americans have no business doing.

The light armor we use in Iraq was developed to counter the IEDs, mines, and anti-tank missiles the enemy has. Each type was developed as a specific remedy for particular weapons being used. If we were a truly occupying army, we wouldn’t need these weapons as they are defensive in nature. An occupying army is offensive in nature. It doesn’t have to worry about protecting itself in such a manner because in general the occupied population is terrified of it. Occupying forces are generally “take no prisoners” forces. We on the other hand protect the general population and take the “hits” for it. That’s why we need armor!

After rejecting an offer by Governor Paterson to discuss an alternate location for their victory mosque near Ground Zero Imam Rauf’s supremacist group did a 180 turn and agreed to a meeting less than 24 hours later. Why the sudden reversal? Is this a PR stunt concocted by these fanatics to seem reasonable and flexible? Or were they dragged kicking and screaming to the meeting because Governor Paterson had the power to ruin their plans?

The Bible states that in the Last Days ALL the nations will come against Israel. “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” Zech 12:3
I believe ALL means ALL, ALL sadly includes the United States. Rather we (our leaders) come against her militarily or by sitting on our hands rather then helping her, giving money and weapons to her enemies (PA) or voting against her in the UN-it all can be implied as “against”.
Finally she will have only God Almighty Himself to defend her-and He will, and He alone will get the glory and the nations will know that HE is God through this. No man, no nation will be able to claim it was their might nor strength which brought the defeat of their enemy-God alone will get the Glory. And this not because Israel is in any way deserving-it is because of God’s Grace and His Word as a Promise Keeper. His Word and Promises to Israel He will keep-for His glories sake !

The threat if Iran is a “”fiction”, one created by the same zionists who led us into the debacle in Iraq. There is no proof that Iran is pursuing the bomb, and they have signed the non-proliferation treaty, which Israel has not. Iran is not an agressive nNation and has attacked no one for centuries, as opposed to America and Israel who are extremely aggressive. Attacking Iran would be a moral blot on us, and trajic for our economy. We lived with a nuclear USSR, who had ICBM cruise missiles pointed at us, and who were a murderous regime, killing 10′s of millions of their own people and were very aggressive. We also lived with red China and Mao, who killed in excess of 70,000,000 people and who also had ICBM’s which were nuclear and pointed at us. All this necon war mongering is insane and evil and it has to stop. Our Country is falling apart

Mosque Bosque, who cares if they build a Mosque and where they build it. This is a manufactured controversy to make the President look bad so that he will be weakened to the point that he will not be able to pressure Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

As to Israel, they armed to the teeth, ain’t nobody gonna mess with that militaristic nuclear armed zionist entity. Get over it.

Yes he does. To answer your question. HE DOES NOT WANT WAR AND WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER WAR. GOT IT?

The rogue apartheid Zionist entity has over 200+ Thermo Nuclear weapons in her arsenal. They have over 5 nuclear carrying submarines lurking in the oceans and the Persian Gulf. How can a single or a dozen rudimentary Iranian nuclear bombs threaten her that is “IF” Iranians even decide to have them??!

What should be clear to everyone and that is, if Iran is attacked she will not just sit there. She will retaliate. Iran fought an 8 years long war with Iraq which has 25 million populations and was armed to the teeth by us and the Russians. Iran fought that war while she was under sanctions and we were giving Saddam Hussein every satellite image of the Iranians troop movement and he still could not win the war! Do you think the rogue Zionists entity can last an 8 years long war with Iran? Or do you think a series of bombing on Iran can deter them and scare them or cause them to say OOH NO MORE PLEASE WE GIVE UP!! Get real people. They will be all over the place and NO Zionists will be safe on the planet.
The Iranians will not allow another repeat of the 1953 and will put up the fight of their life to prevent that to happen again. Think About that.

And do you have your aluminum foil hats on you to protect you from the controlling radio waves emanating from the heart of the “rogue Zionist entity?” You three are awfully brave to say such things on a thread that includes all us raving “neo-cons!

What erudition! What command of the facts at hand! You’ve totally convinced me. I hereby resign my post in the Zionist conspiracy and admit to the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yes, I’m an Elder myself. Hide the wimmin and chilrun before I bleed them to moisten my matzas.

Ronnie: I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you and many
respondants. Bombing Iran? what does it get us? Another embroglio,
the alienation of the Iranian opposition, chaos and all hell on our
economy and commonweal, not to mention retaliation.

Also, I see Obama’s statments on the proposed (formerly)Cordoba
Mosque to be nuanced, and complex, just like his statements vis a vis
the Iranian election, and just like his Cairo speech. Simplistic, black
and white utterances were what we got from W, with the resultant
alienation of the rest of the world to us.